MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impacts and Uncertainty of Climate Change on Water Resource Management of the Peribonka River System (Canada)

2009· article· en· W2101715674 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marie Minville, François Brissette, Robert Leconte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Resources Planning and Management · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceClimate changeHydropowerFlood mythInflowGreenhouse gasHydroelectricityStreamflowContext (archaeology)Hydrology (agriculture)Water resourcesFlood controlClimatologyWater resource managementDrainage basinMeteorologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impacts of climate change on medium-term reservoir operations for the Peribonka water resource system (Quebec, Canada) were evaluated with annual and seasonal hydropower production indicators and flood control criteria. According to simulations under the current operating rules in a climate change context, the tendency is for a reduction in mean annual hydropower production and an increase in spills, despite an increase in the annual average inflow to the reservoirs. The main results indicate that annual mean hydropower would change by −12 to +2%, and spills by −49 to +152%. A broad range of climate projections—a combination of five general circulation models with two greenhouse gas scenarios each—were used in order to evaluate the uncertainty of these future potential climates on floods and hydroelectric production. Climate projections were downscaled with the change factor method (also called the Delta method) at a horizon centered in 2050. To represent natural variability, a stochastic weather generator was used to produce 30 synthetic climate series of 30 years each, representative of each climate change projection as well as of the climate of the control period. The hydrological impacts of climate change were evaluated with a lumped hydrological model and the hydrological regimes were analyzed according to spring flood characteristics and the average inflows. In general, the projections indicate an increase in annual inflow, earlier peaks and greater volumes during the spring flood. The analyses show that a power plant managed with a reservoir is sensitive to the operating rules and that these rules should be re-examined in order to take account of new seasonal hydrological contexts.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations90
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Resources Planning and ManagementSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207